Public Bill Committee

(Morning)

[Sir John Butterfill in the Chair]

John Healey: I beg to move,
That—
(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 10.30 a.m. on Tuesday 16th January) meet—
(a) at 4.30 p.m. on Tuesday 16th January;
(b) at 9.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. on Thursday 18th January;
(c) at 10.30 a.m. and 4.30 p.m. on Tuesday 23rd January;
(d) at 9.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. on Thursday 25th January;
(2) the proceedings shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 23; Schedule 1; Clauses 24 to 43; Schedule 2; Clauses 44 to 57; Schedule 3; Clauses 58 to 70; Schedule 4; Clauses 71 to 73; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
 (3) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 4.00 p.m. on Thursday 25th January.
I welcome you to the Chair, Sir John. I have had the privilege of serving under you on the Finance Bill Standing Committee, as have a number of members of the Committee. For those who have not, I recommend it as the usual channels are always looking for new recruits. Sir John, you take a close interest in general in Treasury matters, but specifically in the Chair you are always fair, and firm only when required. We look forward to your wise guidance in our deliberations on this Bill.
I also welcome all members of the Committee, particularly those on the Opposition Front Benches who have already taken a close interest in the subject, not just on Second Reading but in tabling a number of parliamentary questions to me and to the National Statistician. I am sure that they will contribute significantly to the scrutiny and debate on the Bill’s provisions.
It is an important Bill. Following the independence of the Bank of England, the independent competition authorities, the Debt Management Office and the Financial Services Authority, this Bill forms the next move in the Chancellor’s reforms to set up a system of modern economic governance.
On this day, which marks the 300th anniversary of the Act of Union between England and Scotland, I am particularly pleased that this new statutory system, with the independent statistics board at its heart, will include Scotland as well as Wales and Northern Ireland. That is something that all in the statistics world, the Treasury Select Committee and others in the House had urged us to try and secure, but I think few believed we would manage to secure it. I pay tribute to those in Wales and Northern Ireland who have made the decision to participate fully and, in particular, to Tom McCabe and other Scottish Ministers who have decided that they too want to see these measures and this system to help improve the credibility, integrity, quality and consistency of statistics across the United Kingdom. That is what the Bill is designed to do.
I am glad that we reached agreement on the days needed when we discussed them in the Programming Sub-Committee. I know that those on the Opposition Front Benches and some Back Benchers on both sides will ensure that the Bill gets its fullest possible scrutiny. I am particularly pleased to have two members of the Treasury Select Committee also serving on this Standing Committee; they will bring their expertise to it. Committee members will notice that we are not proposing knives in the programme motion to dictate the progress, but I am determined to do justice to the full Bill, including part 2. Therefore, I and the Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West will ensure that the Committee will sit late should that be necessary, although I hope that it will not.
Finally, I point out to the Committee that, contrary to customary practice, the programme motion proposes that we deal with new clauses and new schedules at the point in the Bill to which they relate—rather than after going through all the clauses. I hope the Committee will agree to that element being most sensible, and to the programme motion in total.

Theresa Villiers: Itoo am delighted to serve under your chairmanship,Sir John. I propose to confine my remarks to the minimum here, since there will be ample opportunity when considering the lead amendment in the first group to look at some general themes in the Bill.
There is cross-party agreement that this Bill is important. If we do this right and amend the Bill appropriately, we could contribute significantly to the strength of, and confidence in, statistics. We will approach the scrutiny process conscious of that importance and in a constructive spirit. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks recently pointed out, the motto of the Italian statistical office is “Statisticum republicae fundamentum”—that is, “Statistics are the foundation of the state”. The Opposition will be working with diligence and determination to strengthen the Bill to ensure the integrity and trustworthiness of those foundations.

Vincent Cable: It is a great privilege, Sir John, to serve under your chairmanship. I think that we all start from broadly the same position on the philosophy of the Bill. We want the quality of statistics to be maintained and improved and the independence of statistical production strengthened. There are a great many areas in which the Opposition parties see scope for improvement and strengthening, so we, the Conservatives, the nationalists and the chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Sevenoaks, have tabled a substantial number of amendments. We need proper time to consider them.
There is no controversy about the programming. I think there was an amicable understanding that the Government are proceeding in a perfectly correct way; no knives are being imposed. I am sure that we will be able to conduct our business speedily but amicably.

Stewart Hosie: I add my voice to those who have already spoken. The Bill is very important and has real potential to improve confidence in and remove the perception of political interference in the production of statistics.
I am relaxed that nine sittings will be more than sufficient. There are no knives in the motion and that is welcome. I was taken by the Financial Secretary’s comments about the 300th anniversary of the Union; this is the Statistics and Registration Service Bill—one would never have imagined that there was a Scottish election just around the corner. It is a pleasure to serve under you again, Sir John, and, mercifully, on a rather shorter Bill than the Finance Bill.

Michael Fallon: I, too, join in welcoming you to the chairmanship of the Committee. I convey the apologies of two of our colleagues, who are currently serving on the Select Committee on Treasury down the corridor. I hope that my hon. Friends the Members for Braintree and for South-West Hertfordshire will be joining us shortly. That will give us three members of the Select Committee serving on the Committee.
I hope that the programme motion will be sufficient. Such things are always difficult when drafted by the Programming Sub-Committee before any amendments are tabled and before the sub-committee is aware, as it cannot be, exactly how many amendments there are likely to be. If we have to run a little longer sometimes, I hope that we will do so, because I think that the Bill is generally recognised to be very important. A Bill to reform statistics does not come round that often and it is important that we get it right.
I am encouraged, however, by the approach of Ministers throughout the process. They have been reasonably open-minded. I was a little puzzled by the letter that the Financial Secretary sent to my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet, in which he said:
“I am looking forward to Committee, which I am surewill prove invaluable in furthering understanding of the Government’s position”.
That is one function of the Committee, but not the sole function. One might argue that one of the purposes of the Committee is to further understanding of the Committee’s position so far as the proposals are concerned. We look forward to considering them in greater detail.

Question put and agreed to.

John Healey: I beg to move,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chairman, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.
Written evidence to a public Bill Committee is subject to parliamentary privilege, but, subject to the discretion of the Chairman, any written evidence received shall subsequently be reported to the House for publication. I believe that we may be the first Committee to resolve to publish in this way, now that the House authorities are ready to allow for that in the manner proposed.
I and, I am sure, the Committee welcome this modest step in further reforming the House’s procedures, which reinforces the opening up of scrutiny of legislation to a wider public. That may make it difficult in the short term for Ministers, but, in the end, stronger and better scrutiny leads to better legislation.

John Butterfill: We are indeed breaking new ground today.

Theresa Villiers: I welcome the move to incorporate formal consideration of evidence into the Committee’s proceedings. We on the Opposition Front Bench have been in touch with a number of interest groups and experts on the matter, to whose notes and representations we will refer alongside the formally tabled evidence.

Rob Marris: Sir John, what a pleasure it is to appear before you again. Were this motion to be passed and given that it would give you discretion, can I tempt you to give an indication as to whether you would have a predilection towards transparency?

John Butterfill: I am in favour of transparency wherever it can be achieved, but I shall take expert advice on these matters.

Rob Marris: That is most helpful, Sir John. Thank you.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1

Establishment

Michael Fallon: I beg to move amendment No. 152, in clause 1, page 1, line 8, at end insert—
‘(4) The purpose of the Board shall be to uphold the quality and supervise the dissemination of statistics for the public good.’.

John Butterfill: With this it will be convenientto discuss the following amendments: No. 17, in clause 7, page 4, line 21, at end insert—
‘(1A) In order to fulfil its objective under subsection (1) above, the Board shall have authority to—
(a) supervise the production of any official statistics; and
(b) require any improvements and corrections that it considers necessary to official statistics.’.
No. 191, in clause 7, page 4, line 21, at end insert—
‘(d) the effective use of official statistics to inform local and regional public service delivery.’.
No. 192, in clause 7, page 4, line 26, at end insert
‘and effective use in the public interest’.
No. 194, in clause 9, page 5, line 1, at end insert—
‘(c) have regard to their usefulness at a local level and the importance of coterminosity of data.’.

Michael Fallon: I, too, welcome the motion that we have just passed. I feel a sense of history settling on the shoulders of the Committee.
Amendments Nos. 152 and 17 stand in my name. I hope that the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth will speak to his amendments, which are very much in tune with mine, and the gist of which I certainly support.
Amendment No. 152 states the purpose of the Bill, which is not set out anywhere in the Bill. That might be a surprise. Clause 1 simply establishes the statistics board, and we do not discover until we reach clause 7 or 8 what its objects are and what its functions are to be. That is a mistake. This is a big Bill, and an important one, and it is rather dull drafting that it does not set out what the purpose of the new statistics board is to be. I rather regret, given the historical importance of the Bill and the infrequency with which we update statistical legislation, that it does not have a preamble. Other statistical laws around the world have preambles, and we could easily have incorporated one here. However, I am advised that, as a preamble has not been tabled by the Minister as part of the drafting, it is now too late to incorporate one.
We can and should set out up front the purpose of the new statistics board, and I hope that the Minister will concede that it is important to do so. This is not simply a Whitehall rearrangement. He has made it clear—as was stated explicitly in the Queen’s Speech—that this is a worthwhile attempt to enhance confidence in statistics by strengthening the independence with which they are collated and published. In other words, the new statistics board is avowedly a public good—that is the intention of the Bill—and I believe that we should affirm that loud and clear.
I have drafted a declaration in three parts: first, to ensure that the board upholds the quality of statistics; secondly that it should have the overarching duty of supervising their dissemination; and thirdly that it should perform both those tasks for the public good. There is a reference to quality in clause 7, but there the definition is more restrictive—it is to promote and safeguard the quality of official statistics. My wording is much more general, namely that the board should have an overarching duty to enhance the quality of all statistics—I have not said “official” or “national” or anything else. I have used tighter drafting, using the word “uphold” rather than “promote”, and I have widened it so as to refer to official, national or other statistics.
The point about supervising dissemination is self-evident: statistics belong to all of us. The board should be under an overriding duty to be involved in their dissemination and to supervise them because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet said, statistics are a key part of democracy. If we believe in more active citizens and in empowering people to participate more fully in democracy, they should have a right to statistical information, which was once the sole preserve of Ministers and Governments.
I would like the new board to adopt a motto rather like that of the Italian statistical office, but we cannot put that into the Bill. The point of that motto in Italy is its recognition that information is one of the cores of the state and that statistics are a key part of democracy. If we believe that we should say so loud and clear.
Amendment No. 17 strengthens clause 7. One of the fundamental criticisms of the Bill, outside and inside Parliament, is that nowhere does it give the new board the duty or the power to supervise the statistical system as a whole. That is a weakness; the board should enforce high standards throughout the system. It is not enough for it simply to be given the power to monitor, to get reports or to publish commentary. We want the new board to be more than a commentator; we want it to have real teeth in all Departments to supervise the high standards that we require and if necessary to intervene to secure them.

Alun Michael: I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak to the amendments in my name. I echo the commentsof others in welcoming your benign but firm chairmanship of the Committee, Sir John.
I am passionate about taking an evidence-based approach to the development of public policy down to the most local level. The amendments are consistent and support the Chancellor and the Government in creating an independent statistics system. However, it is important to make explicit the need for information to be available locally. On the day when we celebrate the Act of Union, it is important to remember that very few policy areas make sense if they are considered on only an England-wide basis. One has to drill down to regional and local level to understand what is really happening.
As a Welshman, I underline the fact that it does not make sense to consider policy for Wales on average either; statistics for Wales only are not terribly helpful in developing policy and service delivery, nor are they very helpful in ensuring that good intentions, at Government, Assembly or local level, match the reality. That has been recognised by many organisations throughout the country, by the Office for National Statistics, the national statistician and Ministers and officials in many Government Departments.
During my time as a Minister, I have been involved in discussions that have acknowledged the importance of making that detailed analysis in order to ensure that public policy is appropriately delivered at the most local level. The problem is that it is easily overlooked. It is very easy for statistics to be produced in a way that informs the general understanding of what is going on, but does not allow targeted action in order to make a difference. I would illustrate that from my own experience in a number of different ways.
Some 25 or 30 years ago I worked in the Ely areaof Cardiff, which is represented by the Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan). It is an area with considerable social problems. Those of us who worked there thought that we understood the area. It was only when we undertook a major project of research, kindly paid for by the Welsh Office, and analysed what was happening right down to the most local area statistics, that we realised that there were big variations within the area. We had to produce an overlay of acetates, rather than the computer-assisted graphics that are now available through geographical information systems, and we realised that the way that we delivered services, worked with young people and produced diversion to try to get young people out of criminal activity needed to be much more finely tuned and targeted within the area if the resources available were going to help to deliver the right results.
There are many other systems around the country now, such as those used by the police to identify the needs in their area and to identify criminal activity. One needs to overlay that with the structure of an area and detailed information to understand what is happening and to tackle the causes through policies such as the crime reduction partnerships, as well as identifying what is happening in terms of the economy, criminal activity, social problems and so on. That is why it is important to write in the sort of amendments that I have proposed here.
Clause 7 deals with the objectives of the new board. Amendment No. 191 would add a fourth element to that important list of objectives that have to be promoted and safeguarded:
“the quality of official statistics, good practice in relationto official statistics, and the comprehensiveness of official statistics.”
The board would also have to promote and safeguard
“the effective use of official statistics to inform local and regional public service delivery.”
Similarly Amendment No.192, which is also in line with the Government’s objectives and what the hon. Member for Sevenoaks sought, would insert:
“and effective use in the public interest.”
There is no point having statistics unless one enables and promotes their public use. I am certain that this was in the mind of the Chancellor and the Government in introducing the Bill.
Going forward as a Member of Parliament—I am sure that many colleagues will have shared this experience—one looks to understand the problems in one’s own area. Very often it is not possible to get the information in the form that one wants it. Where that information is available, such as in the House of Commons Library and Government Departments, the staff do an excellent job in providing the analysis. But sometimes the information has not been gathered in a way that allows it to be aggregated to the level of the local authority, the local ward area or to overlap with school catchment areas or with specifics where the comparison is important for those of us who are trying to improve the quality of life for the people in our area. I have already referred to the importance of using statistics intelligently to understand what is happening in an area in relation to matters such as crime reduction.
I had a meeting with the police in my area lastFriday specifically to discuss that issue. Despite the improvement in the way that statistics can be handled and manipulated through the development of computer-assisted systems, we are still not using them effectively. Frankly, I know less about the statistics and the link between crime and other figures in my constituency than I did when I first became a Member of Parliament. That is because the opportunity offered by the techniques is not being developed adequately and because there is insufficient focus on the all-important local information, which can be aggregated up to inform wider public policy.
The issue came very much into focus when I became Minister for Rural Affairs in the later part of the foot and mouth disease outbreak. As we looked at policy on the issue, I discovered that we did not have information at a sufficiently local level to tell us what was needed in the very local economies of villages or rural areas. A lot of that information exists now, and some excellent work has been done by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Professor John Shepherd, who undertook detailed academic work for the Department. That means that there is a much better fit and that organisations such as local authorities and regional development agencies have a much better understanding of what is needed area by area. Some of that statistical information enables us, for instance, to look at the location of post offices in a rural area and to ask whether they are in the areas of greatest need, where closures might cause reasonable hardship, or in better-off areas, where people would, by and large, have the facility to drive to a nearby post office. Those are very much the practical stuff of delivering policy, and the illustration that I gave will be of interest to voluntary and community organisations, as well as to central and local government.
The point that I am making also applies to amendment No. 194 to clause 9, which states that the board should
“have regard to their usefulness at a local level and the importance of coterminosity of data.”
If the basic raw data is not collected coterminously at the most local level, we cannot aggregate up. At that local level, the raw data might have to remain confidential, because individuals might otherwise be identified, but there are ways of handling that through professional scrutiny and data protection methodology. The point, however, is that if the data are collected and coterminous at the most local level, it will be possible to aggregate up to where they will make sense and enable policy decisions to be taken at the most local levels, whether at ward level or within a ward. It would be a missed opportunity if we did not make it explicit that that is the intention and that the board, in looking at quality at a Scottish, Welsh, national and even regional level, needs to ensure that there is an understanding of variations right down to the most local level.
That seems to be a most basic point, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will indicate sympathy and support for it. It certainly fits with the Government’s wish to ensure that delivery is focused and effective at the most local level. I very much hope, therefore, that I will have a sympathetic response to my amendments, which, as I said, look fairly innocuous, but which could make a big difference to the effective use and the good design of statistics if the requirement that they propose is built in from the commencement of the new structure’s activities.

Theresa Villiers: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Sevenoaks for tabling amendment No. 152, because, as he said, it goes to the heart of the whole discussion that the Committee will have over the next two weeks. It allows us to address the question of how we set up structures to ensure that statistics are high quality and produced according to a sound and reliable methodology. It also gives us the chance to consider how we ensure that statistics are produced and disseminated in a way that serves the public good, not the political ends of the Government of the day. It is important that we do not conflate those two distinct issues. Both, including working to improve the quality, accuracy and reliability of official statistics, are important, but as former national statistician Lord Moser said, it is often not the figures that people distrust, but the people and institutions that use them. The most pressing issue relates not to quality and accuracy—important though they are—but to how statistics are used, released and interpreted. The key problem that we need to address is ministerial spin.
 We must ensure that statistics are produced and released according to principles of integrity and impartiality, and seen to be so. As Bill McLennan, former head of the Government Statistical Service and the Australian Bureau of Statistics, has stated:
“It is essential of course for integrity to exist, but it is also important for it to be perceived to exist.”
Tackling the perception of political interference is as important as tackling the interference itself. Along the same lines, the Audit Commission recently stated:
“A new statistical system needs to ensure robust methodologies to produce statistics, and also ensure that the perception of political interference in the publication of statistics is minimised.”
That trust will never be restored unless we can secure real independence for statistical services.

Rob Marris: The hon. Lady appears to be speaking to an amendment on the use of statistics, not the amendment before us, which is to do with the quality and dissemination of statistics. She is talking about the use of statistics—a completely separate issue.

John Butterfill: Order. I should decide whether the hon. Lady is addressing the amendment or not.

Theresa Villiers: The term “dissemination” covers the use of statistics broadly, and embraces the points that I have made. We need to discuss the crucial issue of the dissemination of statistics and the interpretation put on them.
Another former National Statistician, Len Cook, emphasised the important role that statistics can play in democracy and in influencing political change. Professor Sir Denis Pereira Gray, of the university of Exeter, has stated that lack of trust in statistics
“is a tragedy and seriously undermines democracy and all governments of all parties.”
The Opposition agree that statistics are part of the essential fabric of democratic debate, as has been adverted to this morning. That is a key reason why reform is so important.
 Professor Pereira Gray went on to talk of the economic benefits of reform in terms of the international reputation of the UK and inward investment. Distrust in official figures is not only damaging to democratic debate but can cause grave practical and economic problems. The Statistics Commission has pointed out:
“Decisions affecting our lives are driven by official statistics including allocation of public money, operational decisions, policy intervention, policy evaluation, assessment of public service performance”.
Wisely, it goes on to warn:
“Unless the decision-makers trust the statistical evidence, they will ignore it—potentially at a high economic cost.”
We would do well to heed that warning.
If decisions are taken on the basis of incorrect statistics and if a Government make the mistake of believing their own propaganda, they are likely to take the wrong decisions, with damaging consequences for the quality of public services and the stability of the economy. That is one of a number of reasons why for some years the Opposition have been calling forthe independence of statistics and why we have made the independence for statistical services a key part of our triple lock to entrench stability into the economy. That is also why we have tabled amendments to strengthen the Bill and achieve the overall goal set out by amendment No. 152.
I turn to amendment No. 17. The Opposition believe that it is vital to ensure that the reforms encompass not only the ONS but the decentralised statistical activities in the different Departments. If they do not, we will not have secured genuinely independent statistics, nor addressed the problems that I have outlined. One of the weak spots of the Bill is that the reforms are insufficiently rigorous on departmental statistics. The new board is given the obligation to oversee statistics that fall outside the scope of national statistics, but insufficient power and authority to live up to that responsibility.
Amendment No. 17 would go some way to remedying that problem by giving the board explicit authority to supervise production of all official statistics and require improvements. However, we need to go further than that and seek to apply the code of practice across the range of official statistics. Only then will we have a reform of the strength and scope necessary to restore trust in Government figures. I look forward to discussing that matter in detail when we get to clause 10.
Amendment No. 192, tabled by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, provides us with a useful opportunity to look in more detail at the use of statistics. If we are to have a world-class statistical system, we need to have regard to the use to which those figures are put. Therefore, it is important that the new structures set up by the Bill are responsive to the needs of users, both from inside and outside Government. Clearly, there will be necessary constraints on meeting the needs of users dictated by the availability of resources allocated to statistical services. However, within those inevitable constraints, it should be the goal of the new reform system to produce statistics that are relevant to important policy areas and statistics that people want to use.
There is no doubt that whatever problems there are with trust in official statistics, those statistics are still used by many thousands of people, businesses, charities and other organisations both within and outside Government. The Treasury Select Committee heard evidence that the ONS website received, on average, 700,000 visitors per month between April 2005 and January 2006.
The National Statistician, in planning and co-ordinating statistical services, should have user needs at the forefront of her priorities. It is important that those needs are identified and evaluated in running the system. It is also essential that both the National Statistician and the board engage in frequent and productive consultation with the user community to ensure that this comes about. I welcome the amendment proposed by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth. I also welcome the fact that accessibility is explicitly recognised as important in clause 7(3).
The statistics users forum has highlighted the important contribution that users can make in ensuring that statistics are relevant, effectively distributed andof good quality. It acknowledged that the interaction between Governments, statisticians and usergroups have proved to be productive but feels that further work needs to be done and that there is insufficient non-governmental user input into high-level planning.
I agree with much of the sentiment behind amendments No.191 and 194. Statistical services should take into account the requirements and concerns of local government. As we have heard from the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, the London Government Association, in a helpful note circulated to the Committee, state that it would like to see further standardisation,
“collection and presentation of statistical information”
It is important to facilitate comparison of information at a local level so that we can create meaningful local profiles of service needs and meaningful performance standards and indicators.
Such work will inevitably be subject to the constraints of the resources budgeted for ONS and the Government’s statistical services. Nevertheless, within these constraints, it is important to ensure that local government concerns are recognised, particularly given its role in the collection of data and provision of public services, the measurement of which is a significant function for the statistical services.
I hope that the Government will take notice of the concerns expressed by the Local Government Association and those outlined by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth. The amendments also refer to the regional use of statistics, and perhaps this is where I have a different view to that of the right hon. Gentleman. As I strongly oppose English regional government and regionalisation, I am sceptical about this aspect of the amendments. However, the moves in the Bill, which I am sure we will have the opportunity to discuss at a later stage—

Alun Michael: Does the hon. Lady recognise that whether or not there should be any elected regional government in English regions, a great deal of activity takes place at a regional level? Economic development, transport considerations and a whole host of activities take place at a regional level. Therefore, governance, whether by officials or combinations of local authorities, needs to be well informed.

Theresa Villiers: I acknowledge that a lot of policy making goes on at a regional level, and that should be supported by reliable statistics. However, I would challenge the extent to which policy making should be going on at a regional level, and would like to see more of those policy issues determined at a local rather than regional level. That is in many cases the better level at which to take such decisions.
With that, I will draw my remarks to a close. As I have said, I look forward to discussing similar issues later in relation to reconciling differences in statistical collection in the different nations of the United Kingdom, when important issues arise that I hope will be tackled by the Bill and the Committee.

Vincent Cable: I just wanted to say a few words in support of amendment No. 152, and the consequential amendment No. 17. The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth also made some compelling arguments in favour of his own amendments, which persuaded me. I want primarily to address amendment No. 152. I do not think that there is anything contentious in it. The issue is about having a simple, clear, pithy statement from the outset about what the board is for, emphasising quality dissemination. In the modern jargon, that would be called the mission statement for the board. It is true that further on in the Bill, there is a more complex description of the board’s purposes. Clause 7, in particular, sets that all out in some detail, but it is rather cumbersome and not easy to get one’s head round. I would have thought that in order to save the future board the small consultancy fee that it would probably have to pay to get its mission statement clarified, it would probably be useful for us to do that.
The reasons for emphasising quality and dissemination were eloquently set out yesterday in the press coverage about Home Office statistics. In a remarkable report by the permanent secretary to the Home Office, he acknowledged, rather contritely, in front of a parliamentary Committee, that one in five of his Department’s statistics were seriously defective. He acknowledged that 30 data sets received a zero rating for reliability. What was remarkable about that was, first, the positive point that our system is sufficiently transparent and accountable that the Home Secretary can acknowledge such defects, but what was also clear is that a major Department of State is producing statistics—it was not clear whether they were official or national—that are of such poor quality. They have been reproduced for a long period and used in political debate without any correction. There is also an absence of any mechanism in government for ensuring that that is stopped and corrected. We hope that after the Bill is passed such activity will not continue, and that there will be a much greater emphasis on quality in Government statistics, and better accountability for them all round.
It is absolutely right for the hon. Member for Sevenoaks to suggest that we set out clearly from the outset what the board is for. There are primary and secondary purposes, but the quality of Government statistics as a whole, whether official or not, must emphasise the dissemination and the wider public interest, not the internal purposes of the Government. That is essentially what it is all about, and no harm and potential good is done by setting that out clearly in the first clause of the Bill, in a clear and simple statement of one sentence.

Rob Marris: I invite members of the Committee, particularly colleagues on the Labour Benches, to disregard totally the remarks made by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet on amendment No. 152. Although she trained as a lawyer, and talks law, she seems to have great difficulty in distinguishing between two simple nouns, “dissemination” and “use”.

Fiona Mactaggart: I want to speak to amendment No. 17. Although I suspect that its requirement for improvements and corrections is implied in the existing clause, it is important to dig into the issue of accuracy, and the ability to change where statistics are inaccurate. Much of the debate on the Bill has focused—as did the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet in her remarks today—on how people use statistics. There is an implication that it is only the Government who spin statistics. We all know that that is not the case.
Other members of the Committee will have heard, as I did, an argument about immigration statistics on the “Today” programme this morning between my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and somebody from some pressure group. We are used to people using statistics in ways that are convenient to them. We require from the Bill an ability to ensure that the statistics that the Government publish are accurate, and that they are corrected when they are not. Some ability to be confident that their statistics are above that kind of argument is one thing that I believe everybody in the Committee seeks to achieve.
Let me illustrate with an example that I used in my speech on Second Reading. The census figures for the town that I represent are wrong. By quoting from a campaign postcard, I shall show how my local council is spinning the figures. The council’s postcard states:
“For example, in 2004 the government said only 15,000 people a year would migrate to the UK from Eastern Europe.”
 That is based on a letter from a Minister that referred to the only research that had been done at that point. There is a question about whether such research ought to be commissioned by the Government. It was undertaken as part of an academic study, and it predicted incorrectly that the figure would be 15,000. The Government did not say, “Our statistical predictions are”, but they referred to the research.

Rob Marris: Was it not in fact the case that 15,000 referred to individuals from Poland, not from eastern Europe?

Fiona Mactaggart: My hon. Friend is right. Nevertheless, the number was wrong. It was arrived at for the purposes of an academic study, and it was referred to by Government Ministers, but it was never claimed as a Government statistic. The postcard continues:
“In 2006 it”—
that is, the Government—
“admitted as many as 600,000 could have come since 2004.”
Of course, “could have come” includes people who visited the UK, and I think that that figure is probably accurate. “Yet”, the postcard goes on,
“in August 2006 official statistics found that the number was only 74,000 in one year.”
Of course, that relates to how long people have stayed.
That is an example of spinning. It is a perfectly responsible piece of spinning because it is done in the context of my local council’s feeling reasonably aggrieved by the fact that the ONS calculation is inaccurate. In fact, it does not refer to the case that the major source of inaccuracy is not international migration, but internal migration, because ONS counting in relation to internal migration is based largely on registrations with GPs, and in Slough, 17 of our GPs—nearly all of them—have closed lists and have had closed lists for a long time because they are full. We have a walk-in centre that takes up the slack and treats 200,000 patients a year. In addition, we have a large number of young single men in our population and, as we all know, young single men are more unlikely than other parts of the population to register with a GP. All those factors mean that there is an error in the calculation.
Anyone with an iota of sense would recognise that statistics that say that everywhere in the south-east except for Slough, one of the most booming economies in the south-east, has a growing population do not compute—they do not make sense. It does not require a sophisticated statistician to work that out, yet Slough council, despite all its efforts and the lobbying that I have done with it, has failed to persuade the ONS or anyone else to correct the errors in the statistics. The campaign postcard goes on—

John Butterfill: Order. We are all very interested in hearing some examples of past errors in statistics, and we know that that is what the Bill is designed to address, so I have allowed the discussion to range widely, but we are getting away from the amendment. I would be grateful if the hon. Lady would be satisfied with the number of examples that she has already given.

Fiona Mactaggart: You interrupted me just as I was bringing it all to the point, Sir John, using the same examples but focusing on the amendments. The final paragraph of the campaign postcard states:
“Despite this huge discrepancy the government still refuses to change Slough’s funding saying it is using ‘the best available data’ to count our population.”
They are indeed the best available data. That is the point. The data available from the ONS mid-year estimates are flawed, but there is no independent mechanism to drive change when figures are inaccurate. Amendment No. 17, tabled by the hon. Member for Sevenoaks, would specifically give the board the responsibility for correcting inaccuracies.I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to eitherreassure us that the Bill will do that or accept the amendment.
The census is not a minor statistical series: it counts the population of Britain and is the spine of many of our other official statistics. If we do not have a mechanism to correct gross errors swiftly, that will undermine public confidence in our statistics. The current arrangements, which are slow, bureaucratic and unresponsive, and which insert the Government between the public and the statisticians, are inadequate. The amendment is one way forward, although whatever happens under the Bill will not be fast enough for the people of Slough. I will not go down that road as you have urged me not to, Sir John. Nevertheless, we need a mechanism to correct errors properly, and I hope that the amendment might provide it.

John Butterfill: At this point, let me say that hon. Members are free to remove their jackets should they wish to do so.

John Healey: I was intrigued by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet citing the Italian statistical service’s motto, “Statistics are the foundation of the state.” I am glad that she translated it for me. It is absolutely true, but statistics are not the property solely of the state. As the hon. Member for Sevenoaks said, statistics belong to us all. I therefore hope that all members of the Committee will welcome the initiative launched by the ONS last week of a website that gives individuals access to their own inflation calculator. That is the sort of popularising and greater public access to statistics that increasingly characterises their use and the interest in them.
The hon. Member for Twickenham might have been persuaded by the amendments, but I am less so. I was, however, persuaded by the succinct point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West about dissemination. The hon. Gentleman was right to draw our attention to the importance of the quality of official statistics. The Bill is not just about confidence in Government statistics, or Government spin, as the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet called it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Slough eloquently explained, we have concerns about the quality and accuracy of statistics and the need for corrections to be made properly when the required standards are not met. I draw her attention to clause 7(1)(a), which specifies the board’s first objective and provides the mechanism that she wants. I shall explain in a moment why amendment No. 17, tabled by the hon. Member for Sevenoaks, which would give the board power to direct Ministers and Departments, is not the right way to meet his concern. I expect to hear further telling examples from Slough to help illuminate the later stages of the discussions.
I welcome the contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth. He speaks from a position of experience of use work and constituency work in Cardiff, as well as ministerial experience at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Home Office. I will give him a sympathetic response, but I hope that he understands my reluctance to accept his amendments.
I will now deal with the amendments and the arguments that were put before the Committee by the hon. Member for Sevenoaks. I pay tribute, as I did on the Floor of the House last week, to his chairmanship of the Treasury Sub-Committee. He self-effacingly waves me away, but the Select Committee on the Treasury has taken a consistent interest in the quality of statistics. It produced an important inquiry and report in the run-up to Christmas, which has helped to inform the Government’s approach to the Bill and I know will do the same for the deliberations of the Committee.
 The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the Bill is not simply a Whitehall rearrangement. He is right to say that it is a public good. He encourages the Committee to consider the purpose of the statistics board, but I point out to him that the board’s core objectives are set out in clause 7. In dealing with the amendments, it may help the Committee if I set out the reasons for the objectives being drafted as they are. Clause 7 is the cornerstone of the Bill. It is appropriately succinct, broad and high level, stating that the board should promote and safeguard the quality, comprehensiveness and good practice of official statistics. From that core objective flow the board’s functions in relation to the production and assessment of statistics, which will allow it to deliver. The board will report on and be judged against the extent to which it delivers on that objective, with Parliament playing the central role in holding it to account, supported by the annual report of the board, which it will be required to lay before Parliament and publish at the end of each financial year.
Amendment No. 152 seeks to add to the purposes of the board as set out in the objectives in clause 7. As I have argued, clause 7 already captures the essence of what the board has been established to do. It states that the board should promote and safeguard the quality, comprehensiveness and good practice of official statistics. I believe the objective to be appropriate as it stands. The additional statements proposed in the amendments are unnecessary. I think that if Committee members pause to reflect on what is in the Bill, they will accept that it is appropriately succinct, wide in scope and sufficiently high level to serve as the core terms of reference for the board. Having prompted a useful debate at the start of our deliberations, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.
Amendment No. 17 is more substantive. It would provide the board with the authority to
“supervise the production of any official statistics; and
(b) require any improvements and corrections that it considers necessary”.
Clauses 8, 12 and 13 already give the board wide monitoring and assessment functions, but as we have heard, the intended effect of the amendment is to enable the board to compel action in Departments. That would turn the board into a directional body, and go against the decentralised system of statistical production that we have established and chosen to retain in this country. The decision to retain that system was supported by most of the respondents to the consultation and, indeed, by the Treasury Sub-Committee under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Sevenoaks.

Theresa Villiers: Clause 29 gives the board a directional power in relation to the National Statistician. If that is right for the National Statistician, why is it not right for other Departments? What practical problems will arise from giving the board more effective authority to comply with the duties imposed by the Bill?

John Healey: The provision is appropriate to the National Statistician—this is dealt with in clause 29—because under the terms of the Bill, she will be accountable to the board and not to Ministers. That is one way of putting the statistics system on an independent footing and of removing the board from direct accountability to Ministers. The power to compel Departments and Ministers is of an entirely different order. In our democracy, Ministers are responsible and accountable for allocating the resources of their Departments, including those resources devoted to statistical production. Decisions on how to manage the resources and operation of Departments are—properly—taken by Ministers, who are answerable to Parliament for those decisions. Giving the board the power to compel Ministers to take decisions about their departmental resources and functions would fundamentally change those relationships of responsibility and accountability.
The hon. Lady and other Opposition Members are very interested in the model of the National Audit Office in relation to potential reforms. The NAO does not compel Ministers or Departments to act. It advises, audits, reports, challenges and generally equips Parliament better to fulfil its function of holding Departments and Ministers to account. The NAO does not direct Ministers or Departments. In the same way, it is inappropriate to suggest that the statistics board should direct Ministers, as amendment 17 proposes. Rather than compelling action, the transparency of the board is one of the key ways in which it delivers on the objective. It will be the actions and interests of Parliament in following the work of the board by examining its reports and in holding Ministers and Departments to account that will play a crucial role in the development of the system. Those actions and interests will also play a part in the impact that we have designed the system to have on the nature and quality of, and confidence in, official statistics in the long run.

Theresa Villiers: The Minister makes a good case on the problems of giving a body the power to compel Departments to make particular decisions and to have particular practices. Does that case not apply equally well to the National Statistician? Is there not a case for amending clause 29, so that the board’s focus is on transparency, holding to account, and reporting to Parliament, rather than on seeking to take decisions for the National Statistician?

John Healey: I am sure that we will deal with this issue when we get to clause 29. One of the functions of the National Statistician will be to head the executive office—currently the Office for National Statistics. As chief executive of that body, as well as the Government’s lead professional adviser on statistical matters, he or she will report to the board. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate that the National Statistician is made accountable to the board by the Bill. We are legislating because it is not appropriate for the National Statistician to be accountable to, and therefore under the general direction of, Ministers, as she is at the moment. I expected the hon. Lady to welcome that element of the reforms.
I shall make similar but less forceful comments in relation to amendments 191 and 192, which were tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South  and Penarth, as I did for amendment 152. Both the amendments would add to the board’s objectives, but, although I agree with my right hon. Friend that official statistics have an important role to play in informing local and regional public service delivery, I do not think that it is sensible to specify that among the Board’s core objectives. The important uses to which official statistics are put are extremely varied, ever increasing and rapidly changing. It would not be helpful to specify some and not others in the legislation, not least because—as my right hon. Friend would accept—we cannot hope for primary legislation to be exhaustive.
In addition to the core objective that is set out in the Bill, I expect the independent board to set out its own, fuller, statement of aims, objectives, priorities and goals in the medium and short term. That would give some of the core uses to which it expects official statistics to be put. I am sure that, in preparing and consulting on its code, the board will take careful note of the comments and debates made during proceedings on the Bill.

Alun Michael: I rise to press my hon. Friend further. Unless that objective is made explicit as the expectation of Government and Parliament, competing pressures—for instance for academic use rather than for practical public policy use—may push aside the importance of statistics being available for local purposes. Surely that should be at the core of anything that the board sets out. Is that his expectation?

John Healey: Sir John, it is indeed my expectation that the needs of users will be at the core of the direction and decisions that the statistics board takes. I foresee no circumstances in which a strong concern for public policy and public service delivery at national, regional or local level, as appropriate, will not be fundamental to the concerns that the statistics board reflects when it draws up its code, goes about its operations or—as we will discuss later in the Committee’s proceedings—appoints it members, particularly non-executive members.
I make the same point on amendment No. 192. The proposed objective does not list exhaustively all the aspects of quality, comprehensiveness or good practice that the board will exist to promote and safeguard. It would not be sensible to include some rather than others, or to believe that it is possible to construct an exhaustive list for inclusion in the Bill.

Alun Michael: I am trying to understand why my hon. Friend regards the subject of the amendment as part of a list. It seems to me that it is central to the Bill. If the board is not to promote effective use in the public interest, who is to do so?

John Healey: The central concerns for any statistics board, once it is set up independently, will be the uses to which statistics are put and the users of those statistics. The desire to see public service policy and delivery reflected in those concerns is inevitably going to feature strongly. However, as I have suggested, to specify that in the Bill—to elevate it above a rapidly changing, ever evolving, increasing sources and uses of data—is not sensible at this point. I hope that my right hon. Friend will reflect on that.

Alun Michael: I am trying to understand what my hon. Friend is saying. Does he expect the board to promote the effective use of official statistics in the public interest? If he is indicating that that does not need to be made explicit in the Bill because it is implicit in the structure and the requirements placed on the board, that is one thing and I would understand it. However, if he is saying that it may or may not be important in future, that would be a little more disturbing.

John Healey: Let me try again. I would expect thatto be a central concern of the statistics board. I am suggesting to my right hon. Friend that, at this point, it is more sensible not to legislate for that matter in the Bill, but to leave it to the judgment of the board, which will, as I have explained, amplify in a number of ways the core objectives and standards set out in the Bill. In setting up this powerful and independent statistics board, it is appropriate to leave such matters finally to its judgment and to the judgment of those who are holding the board to account for the code that they devise and for the discharge of their objectives—in other words, to leave it to hon. Members and Parliament to scrutinise and hold the board accountable.
Amendment No. 194 would ensure that definitions, classifications, standards and methodologies that are developed by the board are useful locally. In many ways, the same arguments apply. Again, under clause 9 the board’s duty is wide, so it is not necessary to specify now the specific ways in which they are to be used. The board will develop those as appropriate and will be able to promote them widely. In developing and promoting the definitions, once again I would expect the board to provide contextual information about how and when to use them, including their appropriateness at local level. I have no doubt that the board will wish to develop definitions and classifications on local and regional issues, such as the regional classifications that my right hon. Friend is interested in, and will wish to develop ones that can be applied and used locally. However, at this stage it is not sensible or right to over-specify such matters in primary legislation. Therefore I hope that he will ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

John Butterfill: Order. Can I just say to the Minister, probably for the benefit of the whole Committee, that in respect of amendments Nos. 17, 191, 192 and 194, it will not be necessary for the right hon. Gentleman or any other hon. Member to withdraw his amendment, because they have not yet been moved? However, they have been debated, so if hon. Members are minded not to press them to a Division they can simply not move them at the appropriate time when we are discussing the relevant clauses. We have discussed those amendments with the lead amendment in the group, but they have not yet been moved.

Alun Michael: I just want to make one point in concluding the consideration of the amendments, which have not been moved but have been discussed as part of this group. My concern about the points made by these amendments have partly been answered in the Minister’s response; none the less, I encourage him to strengthen the words that he uses about our expectations of the board.
I accept that we do not want the Bill to contain forms of words that are too prescriptive or that, by specifying one requirement, imply that other requirements are not necessary. I understand the Minister’s reluctance to accept the detail of my amendment. However, unless the board is clear that the statistics are going to be used not only by Government departments or people operating nationally or regionally, but locally, it could wander away from the expectations of Ministers and Parliament.
That point particularly relates to amendmentNo. 194 because it is surely a matter of political judgment and generally the expectation of MPs that statistics are collected in a way that allows aggregation that makes sense in terms of analysing what is going on in the communities that we represent not only at a constituency level but at a much more local level. The figures are useful in terms of small area statistics and the sort of work on rural development that I referred to earlier. What is going on under the surface in urban areas is also very important.
I would hope that what is spelt out in my three amendments in this group is something that we as Parliament should make clear that we expect from the new board. I do not necessarily think that these particular amendments are necessary, but I found the discussion useful.
The Minister may find one or two of my other amendments more acceptable. I want to make sure that this local element is appropriately spelt out and explicit. I shall not press these amendments to a vote, but I hope very much that during our discussions the necessity of ensuring the coterminosity of raw data—allowing proper analysis of statistics in a way that is useful at a local level to local authorities, to decision makers, including ourselves, and also to local voluntary organisations, for instance non-governmental organisations—is made explicit. I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will reflect on those points. I might push him a little further when we come to other amendments.

Michael Fallon: We have had a wide-ranging debate. It is obviously up to the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth to deal with his amendments when we reach them.
I am grateful for the support that amendment No. 17 has had from hon. Members across the Committee. The hon. Member for Slough was right to draw our attention to the need to deal somewhere with the accuracy of statistics, not least because we have had a whole series of corrections and revisions to official statistics over the years. Poor statistics, somebody once said, are rather like the 13th stroke of the clock, which is not only misleading in itself but casts a shadow of doubt over what has gone before. Obviously there is updating, and there are revisions and so on, but there are also corrections and that is why I felt that it was important to put into the statute some power and authority for the board to supervise accuracy.
What strikes me is that we are setting up this board and giving it responsibility without giving it authority. The way in which the Bill is drafted means that the board is not able to enforce standards. That applies to the code of practice, to the collection of statistics and so on. In response to this amendment, the Minister said something very important. He said, “This board is not to be directional”. That causes me concern. If the board is not to be directional, the only conclusion that I can draw is that, so far as departmental statistics are concerned, we will still have a system run by Ministers. 
The Minister tried to pray in aid the Treasury Select Committee report. I have a copy of it to hand. One of the things that we recommended was:
“Although departmental statisticians should remain close to policy colleagues in departments, they should have formal responsibility to the national statistician for any statistics they produce which are intended for the public domain.”
That was the conclusion in paragraph 7. In paragraph 10, on the designation of systems, we said:
“We are nevertheless concerned that retention of this control by Ministers would undermine the perceived independence of the system.”
So the Financial Secretary’s reply gives us concern that a system will be perpetuated, for departmental statistics at least, which is still ministerially run. I am disappointed, because I thought that the whole point of the Bill and of setting up the board was to get away from the idea that Ministers were responsible in the end for Departments’ statistics. That is why I want the board to be given the overarching power where necessary, not to direct or boss around statisticians in Departments, but to put things right where they believe that there is a lack of consistency or a series of poor data. I was very disappointed by the Minister’s response. Amendment No. 17 is to clause 7, so we shall doubtless return to the matter when we reach that clause.
I am encouraged by the support that amendment No. 152 has received from members across the Committee. The wording could of course be polished. In designing a motto or purpose, we all come up with our own drafting. I found the Minister’s response to the amendment rather thin. He said that we did not need to state the board’s purpose in clause 1 because clause 7 set out objectives. Objectives are not quite the same as purpose; a purpose is a higher aim. Clause 7 is also limited to official statistics, which is precisely why I did not include the word “official” in my definition.
I shall press the Financial Secretary one more time. Is he really suggesting that we should vote out of the Bill a reference to the public good? That is what lies at the heart of my amendment. It is the idea that we should put it in statute that the purpose of the board is to act for the public good, not for the convenience of Ministers or even for the benefit of Parliament. I cannot believe that he really wants to reject an amendment that would simply insert the words “for the public good” into the statute. I want to give him one more opportunity to explain why he should.

John Healey: We propose to continue the system for statistics established in this country for 400 years, since the Government first started collecting data on imports  and exports. The UK’s decentralised system is overwhelmingly and widely recognised to have great strengths. Statisticians are kept close to data suppliers and customers, which gives them a good understanding of their data. They have good working links with policy makers and are given necessary insights into developments and future needs. The system also maintains professional statistics and expertise across government. That is the decentralised system thatwe proposed in our consultation. It attracted overwhelming support, including the Treasury Committee’s endorsement, and we wish to continue it in the Bill.
When I said that directional powers were inappropriate for the statistics board, I drew an analogy with the National Audit Office. It is an authoritative body that no one seriously doubts is manipulated by the Government. It does not have the power to compel Departments and Ministers in the way that amendment No. 17 suggests. Therefore, it is not appropriate to suggest that we should seek such powers for the statistics board.
As I have told the Committee, the board’s central objectives as we have set them out are succinct, wide in scope, high level and likely to be independently developed further by the board, when it has been established and is up and running. That is the right approach. The amendment would not contribute significantly to setting out the direction and purpose of the statistics board. If the hon. Member for Sevenoaks presses the amendment, I shall ask my hon. Friends to resist it.

Michael Fallon: I am grateful to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury for trying one more time to persuade me. We shall of course return to the issue dealt with by amendment No. 17 in clause 7. However, I emphasise that I am not suggesting that we should centralise; rather, I suggest, as many outside the House have suggested, that the board needs an overarching supervisory duty. If I may say so, it is slightly disingenuous of the Minister to suggest that I did not say that the current system should continue. Of course we believe in a decentralised system of statistics, but if we are to put the proposals on to a better statutory basis, there must be somebody with the overarching power to supervise the system.

Rob Marris: Amendment No. 152 is too vaguely worded. It refers to supervising
“the dissemination of statistics for the public good”,
but, although the hon. Gentleman pointed out that it refers to “statistics” rather than official statistics or national statistics, it could drag the board into a role that was something akin to that of the Advertising Standards Authority. If a product was perceived to be better for the public good, say, because it used less energy and the producers of that product wished to say that in a newspaper, the board would have to decide whether that statistic should appear in a newspaper, because a newspaper is a means of dissemination. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that it would not be in our interests to include that in the Bill.

Michael Fallon: Yes, of course it is possible to pick holes in the drafting of the amendment, and perhaps legal training helps with that. If the hon. Gentleman wants to offer an improvement to the word “dissemination”, I shall be perfectly happy to accept that. However, the core issue is why we should not specify in statute that the purpose of the board is for the public good. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury is a generous man, so I wonder whether I could try him one more time.Is he suggesting that clause 7 could not more appropriately contain a reference to the public good? Is he saying that nowhere in the Bill would he accept a reference to the phrase “the public good”? Is that his position?

John Healey: I have dealt with the amendments before the Committee. I have made my arguments and I shall let them rest. If the hon. Gentleman presses the amendment, I shall leave it to the Committee to decide what view to take.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 12.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Status

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Healey: It is a relief to get to clause 2, which sets out that the board will
“exercise its functions on behalf of the Crown.”
Consequently, the board’s property, rights and liabilities will be those of the Crown. The idea that the new board and its staff should be a Crown body was almost universally accepted and supported in our public consultations and in the Treasury Committee’s recent report. Therefore, the clause should stand part of the Bill.

Rob Marris: Will my hon. Friend tell me what will be the copyright and use position of Crown statistics produced by the board, as provided for in clause 6(1)(a)(i), as the board itself will produce statistics? We had an earlier debate about the desirability of dissemination and use.

John Healey: The copyright status of the statistics produced by the board is likely to be precisely as it is for those produced by the ONS. In a sense, the board will formally become responsible for the functions currently carried out by the ONS.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

Members

Michael Fallon: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in clause 3, page 2, line 3, leave out ‘five’ and insert ‘eight’.

John Butterfill: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 5, in clause 3, page 2, line 3, at end insert—
‘(c) at least one person appointed by Scottish Ministers.’.
No. 6, in clause 3, page 2, line 7, leave out paragraph (a).
No. 190, in clause 3, page 2, line 12, at end insert—
‘(d) at least one person with knowledge and experience of the use of statistics to inform local service delivery.’.
No. 14, in clause 4, page 2, leave out line 39.

Michael Fallon: This group of amendments brings us to consider the size of the new board. We should recognise that Ministers have moved their position on the issue, as they started from the point of view that there should be a substantial number of non-executive board members, but such members will now constitute a majority. That did not, of course, satisfy the Treasury Committee, which was adamant that the board should be fully non-executive for lots of reasons—for example, to ensure that the National Statistician will be properly accountable to the board as the chief executive officer and that the supervisory and production functions of the new board will be properly separated. We may return later in the Bill to consider how we separate those functions, but for today’s purposes I must accept that the Government have made their decision and that the board will have a mix of executive and non-executive members. The issue before us now is what the exact balance should be.
The Bill proposes a board of nine members, of which six will be non-executive and three will be executive. Of the six non-executive members, three will be territorial—I hope that I have used the right term; perhaps national and territorial might have been a more appropriate phrase. Therefore, apart from the chairman, only two of the non-executive members, if they do not represent England, will be properly non-executive for the United Kingdom as a whole.
I thoroughly welcome the extent to which the Financial Secretary has ensured a more consistent coverage across the United Kingdom. That is a good thing, and far more progress has been made on that during the past year than I thought possible. I commend him and his team on that, but I shouldlike to raise the issue of the overall balance with him and the Committee. If only two of the board’snine members are non-territorial, non-executive members—if I can describe them in that way—that is both too few and too small a proportion of the board, and it will get the board into difficulties.
The board must be credibly independent. If the Governor of the Bank of England complains, as he has done, about the quality of immigration statistics and the effect that they have on policy decision makers in measuring the spare capacity in our economy, he will blame the board under the new system. Equally, however, the part executive, part non-executive board might well want to blame the Home Office or some other Department that has collected the statistics. If only three members of the board are properly non-executive, they may well be asked by the public, “Why didn’t you ensure that these statistics were correct at the time?”
If an issue arose because of the quality of the statistics produced by one of the devolved Administrations, the three territorial non-executive members of the board might well be inhibited from criticising the quality of the statistics or the decision to publish or not to publish them by one of the Administrations, because they rely on them for their appointment. That is unsatisfactory; the way to deal with it is to enlarge the board. My amendment would enlarge the board from nine overall members to 12, which would enable us to have five non-territorial non-executives. That is a better number, and it would give a better overall balance without extending the total membership of the board to a point at which it is unmanageable. Twelve is a perfectly manageable number.
Amendment No. 14, which I also tabled, is a probing amendment. I cannot really believe that the drafting of clause 4(4)(d) is as loose as it appears. I have looked in other statutes and found no reference to misbehaviour, which is incredibly difficult to define. In the Ofsted legislation, I found a measure under which Her Majesty’s chief inspector of schools could be dismissed on the grounds of misconduct or incapacity, which are slightly easier to establish.
Under paragraph (d), a non-executive member of the board could be dismissed for virtually any reason at all. He could be dismissed for a traffic violation, because there is no objective qualification of what could constitute misbehaviour. There is not even a subjective qualification, such as that it should be misbehaviour in the eyes of the person who made the appointment. That needs to be tightened up. If we are talking about summary, on-the-spot dismissal, the behaviour clearly needs to relate to gross misconduct rather than a traffic violation. If it means misconduct, the definition needs to be tighter.

Stewart Hosie: I wish to speak to amendments Nos. 5 and 6, which concern the appointment of non-executive members to the board. The hon. Member for Sevenoaks described the three board members appointed under clause 3(4) as territorial and said that they might fail to criticise statistics from the devolved Administrations because they will rely on them for their appointments. The whole point about the way in which the clause is drafted is that they should not be territorial and should rely not on the Administrations but on the Treasury for their appointments. I shall come on to that later.
I turn first to the helpful summary briefing provided by the Financial Secretary. It begins with a rather short sentence: “Statistics matter.” It goes on to say that they should allow
“people to judge whether the Government is delivering on its promises. High-quality statistics are a key resource for government, business, academia and the wider community.”
I agree entirely. Indeed, on Second Reading, I explained that our difficulty in Scotland with some statistics, particularly some of the economic ones, is that we cannot trust much of what we see. The general expenditure review for Scotland, designed as a political initiative, is fatally flawed. Information is often wrong and can come with so many caveats that a new analysis of the economy is almost impossible.
It is essential that statistics are accurate and based on complete information—I agree entirely with what the hon. Member for Slough said today and on Second Reading—as well as impartial, and seen to be so, as I have said previously. That is why the provision in the Bill for the appointment of the non-executive members of the board remains of some concern to me. Clause 3(2) describes non-executive members as
“the chairman ... and at least five other persons”.
Clause 3(4) describes what appear to be territorial representatives, but they are not. It reads:
“one person who is appointed by the Treasury after consulting the Scottish Ministers”,
another
“after consulting the Welsh Ministers”,
and another
“after consulting the Department of Finance and Personnel for Northern Ireland.”
I hope that the intention is that they be territorial representatives—someone from each of the devolved Administrations—but the Bill does not say that. It states specifically that the appointments will be made by the Treasury.
To improve the perception of impartiality and to rebuild trust—we have heard in many debates about the lack of trust and confidence in statistics—I believe that it would make far more sense to allow the devolved Administrations to appoint members. We should also remove what might be perceived as a blocking mechanism—the Treasury appointments. For statistics to be impartial, and seen to be so, the fundamental underlying structure of their production must be beyond reproach. I cannot identify a reason for the provision of Treasury appointments other than Treasury command and control. I spent the weekend trying to work out why it is there. Does it represent a lack of trust in appointments by the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh and Northern Irish Assemblies? I find that hard to believe. They are made up of elected politicians with a mandate and Ministers with responsibility for their nation or province.
If statistics are to be impartial, and seen to be so, the means of their production must be beyond reproach and any accusation or allegation of political interference. I look forward to the Financial Secretary’s justification for retaining what appears to be an overweening Treasury command and control mechanism.

Rob Marris: On the hon. Gentleman’s fears about political interference, how would that be altered if the appointments were made by Scottish Ministers, as proposed in amendment No. 5, which he tabled? That part of his argument does not seem to make sense. Surely, the risk of political interference would be equally great.

Stewart Hosie: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I have been struggling with that because in a sense he is absolutely right—the same allegation could be made. However, if the entire board is appointed by the Treasury—a single source—one might be left with the impression that it was simply refusing to let go. For the purposes of debate, my proposed mechanism applies only to Scotland, but if territorial representatives were appointed by Ministers from the relevant Parliament or Assembly, there would be a counterbalance and a removal of the perception of a merely Treasury appointment mechanism.

Brooks Newmark: May I support my friend here? The point that I believe that he is making and to which I should like to lend support is that we need to broaden the scope from the narrowness of the Treasury, which seems to have a vice-like grip on appointments throughout the system. The proposal is a step in the right direction and supports the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks. We need to broaden things out and weaken the Treasury’s grip in that regard. It would be interesting to hear from the Financial Secretary the flaw in that argument.

Stewart Hosie: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I am not sure whether I am really his hon. Friend, but I know what he means. He said that the amendment would broaden the scope. My intention was to define the scope more clearly by ensuring that the Treasury could appoint its representatives, that the territorial representatives could be appointed by the devolved Administrations and that there was a clear balance between those who were appointed centrally by the Treasury and those who were appointed from elsewhere, which I think is the intention. The amendment would simply ensure a degree of fairness and equity in the composition of the new board and remove any perception of lack of impartiality in the production of statistics thereafter.

Alun Michael: I, too, am grateful for the opportunity to enter the debate. My amendment goes in a somewhat different direction from the ones discussed. I seek to add to subsection (4) paragraph (d), which says that
“at least one person with knowledge and experience of the use of statistics to inform local service delivery”
should be appointed to the board. In an earlier contribution, I made some of the points about the importance of local statistics and I do not want to labour this point. However, I do want to ensure that it is built into the expectation that Parliament is setting on the board for the future, because I believe that the point I am making is shared by all parliamentarians on both sides of the House.
My point is, once more, that official and national statistics are important to effective parliamentary scrutiny and to the development of central Government policy. That is rightly recognised by the Bill. It is explicit; it is there. However, official and national statistics are equally crucial to the effective targeting, delivery and performance management of substantial public resources, delivered and accounted for locally—for example, through local government. Actually, that involves not just local government but local bodies of central Government, such as parts of the national health service or agencies such as the police service.
I referred earlier to a variety of issues such as crime reduction, but neighbourhood renewal is also a good illustration in this respect. As Ministers across Departments, including the Treasury, have recognised repeatedly, policy objectives for neighbourhood renewal and community cohesion can be achieved only if local public and other services can identify who needs help, where they are located and where there are pressure points. I have sat in many meetings of Ministers and many meetings of this House at which discussion of how we ensure that we properly target resources has been right at the heart of how we have debated national policy, so what I am saying does not run counter to the use of statistics for national purposes. It is an essential building block of effective national Government policy and accountability to Parliament.
The amendment is designed to ensure effective local user representation. In other words, there should be someone on the board who understands how proper analysis can be used to inform health services, the organisation of emergency services—indeed, a range of issues that are crucial at the most local level. The amendment would also aid the Government’s objective of keeping statisticians close to data suppliers and customers.
I urge my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to look with sympathy on that point. I am sure that he shares my experience of hearing many people who have an excellent understanding of research needs and statistics for a variety of purposes—understanding overarching national priorities, looking for international comparisons—but who overlook the importance of local data, simply because such data are outside their experience, not in their area of academic research or not at the forefront of their minds. As I mentioned earlier, the ONS has moved in that direction and is, like Ministers and Departments, conscious of the importance of soundly based local statistics and information.
It has almost seemed as if the Financial Secretary were speaking in favour of the amendment, especially in the light of his comments in response to the earlier debate. He said that the board should be able tomake appropriate judgments about the objectives. I understand his point; it is important for there to be flexibility and for the board to take control of how statistics are developed and their quality and excellence. If that is the case, it is important that the board should have something repeatedly acknowledged by Ministers and also important for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—an understanding of local statistics.
We often end up with lots of discussions about comparisons between English regions, or between them and what is happening in Wales and Scotland, or between local authority areas up and down the country and those across the boundaries. I underline the point again: there is no conflict. All the local government area statistics, regional statistics and territorial comparisons operate well as an aggregation of local statistics. If we get the local ones right, everything else will fall into place. However, it is easy to overlooksuch local statistics; the board could, with the responsibilities that the Financial Secretary has rightly suggested it should take on, overlook the importance of the very local level.
Why do we need to make the issue explicit? All too often when it comes to dealing with data, important issues are overlooked. That is true of the exchange and sharing of information, about which we shall no doubt talk later. At the end of the day, there will be a danger if the information has not been collected at the raw-data level on a basis that makes sense, as could happen if the board did not understand the importance of very local statistics at neighbourhood renewal level. 
I hope that the Financial Secretary will acknowledge the importance of local data, and of building them into how the whole system works and into the board’s work. There should be proper accountability for what will no doubt concern parliamentarians, individually and severally, in the coming years, and it should be built into the operation and composition of the board.
Incidentally, I do not seek an increase in numbers; the amendment does not propose an additional board member specifically for the purpose that I have suggested, but that the membership of the board should include an individual with the relevant experience. I hope that the Financial Secretary will either accept my amendment or give an assurance that consideration of my point will be built into how appointments to the board are made. We should be certain that in its deliberations such local issues are fully taken into account and cannot be overlooked.

David Gauke: It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John.
I wish to speak to amendments Nos. 186 and 187, which stand in my name.

John Butterfill: Order. The amendments to which the hon. Gentleman refers have been grouped with amendment No. 176, which is to be discussed later. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to discuss his amendments now, rather than with amendment No. 176, that would be perfectly proper. I would be happy for him to do so, but he may find the grouping with amendment No. 176 more appropriate.

David Gauke: I will address the two amendments later, with amendment No. 176, but I will make one brief point on amendment No. 14, which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks. I agree with his concern about “misbehaved” in the context of what may cause the dismissal of non-executive members. I agree that “misbehaved” is somewhat inappropriate. I would be grateful to know whether there are other circumstances where the concept of misbehaviour is used. It sounds more like something that one would say when admonishing a small child. At least in my own household, the sanction for misbehaviour is usually two minutes on the naughty step as opposed to summary dismissal from the statistics board.

Vincent Cable: I want to say a few words in support, particularly of amendment No. 13. I also agree with writing out misbehaviour as a criterion; such language being used in legislation is rather absurd. On amendment No. 13, there are two reasons why expanding the number of non-executive members in the way that the hon. Member for Sevenoaks was suggesting is important. One is maintaining the appropriate balance between the non-executive and executive members, for the reasons set out. It would be completely wrong to have a situation where, either by intention or inadvertently, the executive members, who have a vested interest in defending the policy of their own product, could outvote non-executives, who have been brought in to supervise and oversee the process. Clearly the intention is not that they should be outvoted, but the risk applies, as suggested by the hon. Gentleman, because three of the non-executives are in a slightly separate category. Whether we describe them as territorial or in some other way, they are clearly not open-ended non-executives in the way that one would expect.
I think that there is another, rather stronger argument, which is the importance of diversity among the non-executive directors. To have six would seem quite generous, but since three are pre-empted for appointments by Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, we are effectively talking about three non-executive directors with a broad background. I am not trying to appoint the board, but I can think of categories of people that it would be highly desirable to have on the board. It would be desirable to have somebody from the commercial sector, who is a major user of and familiar with the requirements of statistics from a commercial standpoint. It would be desirable to have a top-class academic, who understands the methodology and the new ideas in statistical method. It would be desirable to have, as the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth said, somebody who sees statistics from a different standpoint—that of community use. It would be desirable to have somebody with overseas experience; we have seen the considerable contribution of DeAnne Julius and, latterly, Prof. Blanchflower to the Monetary Policy Committee; they bring to bear a different perspective, whether of the United States and the Anglo-Saxon countries, which are similar in their approach to statistics, or of western Europe. That dimension is desirable. It would also be desirable, in principle, to have a former head of statistics, maintaining continuity, institutional memory and an understanding of the issues.
Without pursuing the issue far, I can think of five potential categories that it would be useful to have on the board as non-executive directors—maybe one or more of each. It would be in all our interests, including the Government’s, to err on the side of generosity with the number of non-executive appointments, partly to preserve the balance that the hon. Gentleman was concerned about, but also to ensure a proper diversity of opinion and background.

Mark Hoban: I add my welcome, Sir John, and I look forward to serving under your chairmanship, as I did on the Finance Bill Committee last year. I want to add a little to the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks on amendment No. 13, to which I and my Front-Bench colleagues have added our names. When considering an increase in the number of non-executive members on the board, it is important to reflect not just on the diversity of their backgrounds—to echo the remarks of the hon. Member for Twickenham—but to think in this context about the functions of the board and its responsibilities, and therefore what input the non-executive directors need to give.
Briefly, just to tie this back to the basis of how many non-executives there should be, there are three things the board will have to do. It will monitor compliance with the code of all designated national statistics, whether produced by the ONS, Government Departments, or devolved Administrations. Secondly, it will have responsibility for the production of UK-wide statistics where the National Statistician produces them. Thirdly, it will have responsibility for the production of English statistics from the ONS, which may relate to matters such as internal population trends and health care. So, the non-executive directors will need to supervise a wide range of different responsibilities.
Let me also make it clear in this context that, since the Financial Secretary referred in his opening remarks to the 300th anniversary of the Act of Union, it is good to see that the fragmentation that devolution has led to in the production of statistics has, to an extent, been healed in this Bill. It is therefore right, given the board’s oversight and UK-wide scrutiny, that non-executive members are appointed in consultation with the devolved administrations. I suspect that if the board’s responsibilities were purely UK-wide, we might have a different debate about the representation and number of directors. Yet, given that the National Statistician has particular responsibility for the production of statistics in England, setting aside the executive directors, were the non-executive directors on the current composition to vote as one group on a particular issue there could be deadlock. Three non-executive directors could vote on UK-wide or English responsibilities, and three could take a contrary view, reflecting their roots in the devolved Administrations.
We need to move away from that possibility of deadlock between three non-executive directors, who might have a wider perspective, and three appointed in consultation with the three devolved assemblies. I am conscious that the Financial Secretary has said before that it is important that the board does not become too unwieldy, but it is equally important to get the territorial balance right between members. So, as my hon. Friend has suggested, it is appropriate to move from at least five non-executive directors to eight, in addition to the non-executive chairman.
In amendments Nos. 5 and 6, the hon. Member for Dundee, East, expresses his concern about the status of the appointments made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the Treasury, and the method of consultation. He proposes that, in the example of Scotland, the board member should be appointed directly by the Scottish Ministers. I am not sure whether that more fragmented appointment process would help resolve some issues about the production of statistics and their comparability across the UK. I am sure it is also the case that if the Treasury did not appoint the person recommended by Scottish Ministers, they would be quick to highlight that. Such political transparency might perhaps achieve the same ends that the hon. Gentleman, has highlighted.

Stewart Hosie: I understand the argument that the hon. Gentleman is making, but I just want to make sure he understands the argument that I laid out, where I was attempting to remove the perception of Treasury command and control. This was merely a mechanism. I would just like an understanding or recognition that that was my intention, rather than seeking any fragmentation of the new board.

Mark Hoban: Absolutely, and I agree that at various stages of these Committee debates we will come to ways in which we might try to reduce the Treasury’s influence over this process. I understand that the hon. Gentleman is recommending one way of doing so and there are others, which we will explore in more detail later. It is important to get this issue right and I am not sure that the amendment is the best way of doing so, but I acknowledge the validity of the hon. Gentleman’s arguments.
The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth made an important comment about the experience and background of the non-executive directors. I hope that the Financial Secretary will reflect on his plea for a variety of experience. The hon. Member for Twickenham also said that we need to ensure that the non-executive directors appointed to the board reflect a wide range of expertise and experience. Given the three territorial appointments that have been made, I am not entirely sure that simply limiting to five the number of non-executive directors in addition to the chairman, will enable the board to reflect the expertise and experience to which the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Twickenham referred. There are some persuasive arguments for increasing the number of non-executive directors from at least five to at least eight.

John Healey: This has been a useful debate, as we have examined the detail of the proposals. I hope that I can explain some of the thinking behind the size and membership of the board.
The principles we have tried to follow have been clear from the outset: first, sharing accountability acrossa group of individuals from a wide range of backgrounds and with a wide range of expertise will produce better results than vesting all authority in a single individual, which some have argued for. Secondly, we have been clear and consistent in wanting the board to carry out independent scrutiny of the statistical system; there should therefore be a majority non-executive board.
However, in keeping with the practice of good corporate governance, and given the board’s governance role in respect of the statistical office, there should be an executive presence on the board, including the national statistician as head of the executive office who would be the board’s chief professional adviser and the chief executive of that office on the board.
Consequently, given the desire to maintain a small, fixed number of executives on the board—three—and then to ensure that there is always a comfortable, non-executive majority, we concluded that we should set the minimum number of non-executives at six, bearing in mind that it is also good practice to maintain an odd number on boards to allow votes to be conclusive. In other words, there will be six non-executives—one executive chair and five non-executives. We also bear in mind that it is common practice in good governance to ensure that boards do not become too large or unwieldy.
I want to make it clear to the hon. Member for Sevenoaks that the Bill does not specify that the board will be composed of nine members, but that it will have at least nine members. Should we deem it appropriate following the consultations and in order to meet our aims, it would allow us to err on the side of generosity as the hon. Member for Twickenham put it.

Stewart Hosie: I want some clarification, please. Yes, there is a minimum size, but is it correct that it is the Treasury that would allow it to be increased, not the board itself?

John Healey: The board will be appointed on Ministers’ advice. The Treasury will co-ordinate that advice and will consult each of the Administrations in the devolved countries on at least one of the board members. It will take into account the wide range of experience and skills we are seeking from academia, from business, from the public sector at local and regional level, from people with experience of running organisations and from those who can assess user needs and act and take decisions in the public interest. That combination of wide experience and expertise will give the board its complexion and its strength.

Brooks Newmark: I understand exactly what the Financial Secretary says, but unfortunately he is not answering a discrete and distinct question from the hon. Member for Dundee, East. In order to restore public confidence in statistics, admittedly through the board, will the Treasury or the board itself be the ultimate arbiter of whether the board increases?

John Healey: The Bill is clear that one residual Government function must inevitably be the conduct of the public appointments. If the hon. Gentleman reads clause 3(5), he will see exactly what is proposed and the Treasury’s role in it. It will be possible to increase the number of non-executives on the board, but the Bill provides for the minimum number that would allow for the range of experience that we want.
It is important that the board takes proper account of the circumstances and needs of each country in the UK, not just of England. We have been working closely with each devolved Administration to prepare the proposals in the Bill. As the Bill says, each Administration will be consulted on one board appointment to help to ensure that the board can take proper account of devolved circumstances and needs.
There will be a balance between ensuring that the board can collectively represent the needs of all users and ensuring that it has an understanding of the specific circumstances and needs of the devolved countries. Let me be clear that such members will not be appointed to the board as territorial representatives. It is slightly insulting of the hon. Member for Fareham to imply that those appointed in consultation with the devolved Administrations may have a narrower perspective than their board colleagues.
I thank the hon. Member for Sevenoaks for his comments on amendment No. 13 and his recognition of the way in which the Government’s thinking has developed in the territory under discussion. The board may be able to conduct its business with a cohesive range of members, the group of nine people; but the power to appoint more non-executives will remain to provide any flexibility required to adapt to changing circumstances and to respond to any strong views that the board, in light of experience, or that Parliament, in light of examining and holding the board to account for its conduct and operation, may take. I hope that on that basis, he will not press the amendment.
The two amendments that the hon. Member for Dundee, East tabled would allow Scottish Ministers to appoint one member of the board, rather than be consulted on the appointment. In keeping with the proposed legislation, the board will be a UK-wide body, it will represent the widest range of users and its members will be appointed to do that collectively. They will represent users who may be interested in a particular statistical sector, or in local and regional statistics, and users may come from the public or the private sectors, or they may be citizens, the Government, or indeed, Parliament. The board will exist to represent the public interest as a whole. Those members who are appointed after consultation with the devolved Administrations will not be on the board simply as territorial representatives of those countries.
If we want the board to be small and cohesive, it is ultimately dictated that one authority should be responsible for all appointments, as the Bill proposes. That is emphatically not a Treasury blocking mechanism. It is of course right that Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers and, in due course, I hope, Ministers in Northern Ireland should be consulted on appointments to ensure that the board has sufficient understanding of the devolved need for statistics. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman that Scottish Ministers have agreed to that role in appointments to the board. They have agreed that it is appropriate that they should be consulted before the appointment of the relevant non-executive member. They are content with the Bill and with the fact that it offers the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament safeguards in relation to their role in devolved statistics. I therefore encourage him to refrain from pressing his amendments.
On the points raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, I have said a couple of times that we want the board to be appointed in such a way that it can represent the widest range of interests in statistics. Its members will do so collectively and by including the interests of those who are concerned about local and regional statistics, and I repeat that the board’s job will be to represent the public interest as a whole. If my right hon. Friend has not already studied clause 32 carefully, he might be interested to hear that it enables the board to establish committees, including advisory committees, on which further external members can sit. Those committees, and the power to set them up, will be important in helping the board to deliver its statutory functions. I would expect it to establish committees and other mechanisms to ensure that it can fully assess the widest range of statistical users’ needs and deal with the concerns that those who rely on statistics, including for local policy making, may have. I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept that, in rather the same way as on the previous group of amendments, it would not be appropriate or sensible to specify in the Bill the requirement for one particular interest group. I therefore encourage him not to press his amendment.

Alun Michael: I understand the Minister’s point, and he is close to satisfying me. It would be some reassurance if he suggested, as I believe he has, that it will be essential for board members to have a knowledge of, and to deal with, the local and very local use of statistics—the fine-grained use of statistics that I described earlier. My concern is that he referred to that in terms of one group of users, as if everybody is the same. My key point is that local statistics are the essential building blocks; if we get them right, everything else can be aggregated for the benefit of every other user. Does the Minister expect the importance of that point to be understood by those dealing with appointments? Should the Bill not be amended in the way that I suggest, with the essence of what I propose being incorporated in the appointments process, although not quite in the way that I suggest?

John Healey: My right hon. Friend is right to remind me and the Committee that the value of local, neighbourhood statistics applies not only to the interests of a single group of users. He also raises an important issue. Over the past five or six years, we have seen a significant increase in the demand for such data and a significant change in the view of how it canbe used. Indeed, the ONS and statisticians in Departments have started to respond well to improve our ability to collect statistics on a local and very local basis. That trend will clearly continue. The quality in that area of data is still not good enough. The statistics board will be set up independently to discharge the functions set out in the Bill, and the Committee and my right hon. Friend can confidently expect it to ensure that it is aware of that trend and the developing requirement of such data.
The hon. Member for Sevenoaks made it clear that amendment No. 14 is a probing amendment, and the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire had some concerns on the same matter. The hon. Member for Sevenoaks said that he had been looking for precedents of our proposed formulation in bodies with which he was familiar and had not found it. We were working on the basis of precedents in drafting this part of the Bill, and if members of the Committee wish to consult other legislation that adopts the same approach they could look at the provisions of the Energy Act 2004 on the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority or those in the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 on the Office of Rail Regulation. Both contain lists aligned to the one set out in the Bill.

Rob Marris: On amendment No. 14, could my hon. Friend say how the use of the word “misbehaved” is different from the use of the word “unfit” in paragraph (f), two lines later? As a lawyer, I share the reservations of Opposition Members, and I had the same vision of the naughty chair as the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire.

John Healey: I am not sure whether the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire wishes to table a naughty chair amendment, but I do not believe that any of us on the Committee would regard that as appropriate.
If my hon. Friend is looking for a parallel to the serious potential misconduct and misbehaviour in question and a definition of misbehaviour, he would do better to consider the concept of misconduct rather than of unfitness. Misconduct might principally be held to be connected with the office held. In this case, for instance, it could be interference with statistics produced by the board or covering up information relevant to an assessment decision made by the board.

Brooks Newmark: I totally agree with the Minister on that point, but could not the matter be integrated within the reference in subsection (4)(e) to the “terms of his appointment”? It could be clearly laid out in those terms.

John Healey: The hon. Gentleman makes a weaker argument than other members. The terms of employment might be much more specific and notdeal with the unlikely and almost unthinkable circumstances that we must nevertheless consider.The essential difference between misconduct and misbehaviour is that misbehaviour can be not just activities related to holding an office but behaviour that could be sufficiently infamous as to render someone unfit to continue to hold office—perhaps serious corruption or violence.
On the basis that our concept is not novel and that I have given him at least two precedents, I hope that the hon. Member for Sevenoaks will regard that as satisfactory explanation of the drafting.

Stewart Hosie: I can agree with the Financial Secretary that the board should represent the widest possible range of people and that it should fully represent the public interest. I have no quibble with that, but I am disappointed that he suggested that the people appointed under clause 3(4) will not effectively be appointed by the devolved Administrations. My concern is that it appears that the Treasury intends to keep the control mechanism firmly in its grip by controlling all the appointments and the size of the board. He referred to agreement by Scottish Ministers. It would be surprising if Labour-Liberal Ministers did not agree with this Administration at this time.
The purpose of my amendment is to try to release and remove the Treasury grip on the board, to free it up and ensure that there is a perception of impartiality, but there may be other ways in which to achieve that, so I shall not press my amendment to a vote.

Michael Fallon: I sense that the Committee may want to deal with this matter before it adjourns. On amendment No. 14, I challenged the Minister to provide examples, and he gave some, so I cannot question them although I note that they are from the later period of this Government. However, it is rather odd that he talked first about misbehaviour in terms of misconduct, but when he suggested the sort of misbehaviour he talked about corruption or violence. I do not think the provision is well drafted, but we may come to that later.
On amendment No. 13, I want to make it clear to the hon. Member for Dundee, East that I do not like the concept of territorial membership of the board. If I were a Scottish nationalist and a Scottish member were appointed by the Chancellor, I would find that just as offensive as him. I do not like it because it is a corporatist model. When territorial distinctions are introduced, England always ends up being underweight in population terms. If England had the right number of members in population terms, it would have 18 or 19. It seems to replicate the BBC model and there is no transparent evidence that the BBC has been well governed on that principle.
The Financial Secretary’s basic response was that the board is small but can be increased. However, he then revealed that under the legislation it is the Chancellor who will be able to increase its size. That again perturbs me, and there may be a link between amendmentsNos. 14 and 13. If the Chancellor does not like the way in which a board member is behaving—perhaps because they are being critical, and issuing press releases and so on—he can simply appoint two or three more people to the board to redress the balance. That alarms me, and I am not reassured by the fact that the Chancellor can increase the membership.
The arguments are fairly simple. First, increasing the board from nine to 12 would not undermine its manageability. A board of 12 members is perfectly manageable. Secondly, the Treasury Committee recommended a fully non-executive board. All Iam trying to do is to increase the proportionof non-executives. Thirdly, increasing the proportion of non-executives would send out an important signal of reassurance as the current watchdog—the Statistics Commission is fully non-executive—is wiped away by the Bill that the new board is sufficiently independent.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 10.

Question accordingly negatived.

It being One o’clock, The Chairmanadjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Four o’clock.